Altitude And Air Resistance

[[old] PaulH]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 22 2005, 05:01 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 05:01 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulH+Feb 22 2005, 11:32 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulH @ Feb 22 2005, 11:32 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If that max has been reduced by the same proportion then you'll still do better than me, but not any more better than you would at sea level. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />PaulH,<br /><br />I understand what you're saying, but really fitness does make a big difference.<br /><br />For example, as already cited, fit acclimatized world class runners, although competing on poor tracks and not optimal conditions, often run within 20 to 30 seconds of their sea level 10k times at altitude.<br /><br />Now if you take a 10k runner who is not fit, then an average person who is least fit, the percentage from sea level times will become greater and greater.<br /><br />Increased fitness has the benefit of neutralizing most of the decreased availability of oxygen, while extending the distance of the more advantageous component.<br /><br />This is even more the case with machine aided advocations, such as with cycling and rowing on an erg. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I'm not disagreeing with you on this, just pointing out that thinking it might be otherwise is *not* foolish. For example, my time would be far more than 20-30 seconds slower than my sea-level best, but as a percentage it *might* not be that different, simply because as an unfit person my pb is so weak already!<br /><br />Cheers, Paul

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulH+Feb 22 2005, 02:44 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulH @ Feb 22 2005, 02:44 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not disagreeing with you on this, just pointing out that thinking it might be otherwise is *not* foolish. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Okay then perhaps uninformed would be a better word.<br /><br />However my personal opinion is that if someone is really serious about competing at altitude, and neglects to develop their aerobic capacity, then they are leaving out a very vital part of their training and development.<br /><br />Also, having personal experience with this, I can guarantee that those with well developed aerobic capacities will be much closer to their sea level times at altitude than those with less fitness.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-c2jonw+Feb 22 2005, 01:51 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2jonw @ Feb 22 2005, 01:51 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many of you have perhaps already seen this:  <a href='http://www.concept2.com/update/S2002/drag.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/update/S2002/drag.htm</a><br /> JonW <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Excellent reference Jon! The critical information which is being ignored by John, even after multiple and extensive explanations is sumarized nicely there: <br /><br />"Luckily, the monitor compensates for all of these variables by using the appropriate drag factor in calculating your score, but you may need to change the damper setting to make different Indoor Rowers feel "right" to you."<br /><br />Of course we could go back to the beginning posts of this entire thread and see that reason and facts were attempted, and attempted, and attempted, etc...<br /><br />Such things have no place in <b>Bizzarro World.</b>

[[old] Porkchop]

<!--QuoteBegin-kjgress+Feb 22 2005, 11:35 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(kjgress @ Feb 22 2005, 11:35 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Porkchop:<br /><br />Here is some info (I am sure not the most scientific)<br /><br />DF damper on 10: 168<br />DF damper on 5:    113<br />DF damper on 1:    78<br /><br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />For comparative purposes at ~300 feet:<br /><br />Damper 10 - DF 233<br />Damper 5 - DF 138<br />Damper 1 - DF 83<br /><br />These measurements were taken on a Model D, three months old, used, for the most part, only by me, for less than 350,00 meters. I think at this point it is still relatively low in dust accumulation. Perhaps someone at C2 could comment on how much of the difference in DF could be attributed to the difference in models. I would assume, unless someone tells me there is a difference between models, that there is none. For damper positions 10 and 1, the selection lever was hard against the stops.<br /><br />I don't know how to convert the drag factor differences for meaningful discussion, but it is clear that the biggest differences in DF are at the high end, not the low end, and that the near-sea-level machine can replicate every DF on the high-altitude erg except the very lowest level. It appears that the difference on the low end is so small, though, that it may not be significant (83 vs. 78). There is roughly a 6 percent decrease in DF at altitude at the low end, but as I understand it, as a practical matter, no one rows at that DF. (Parenthetically, I certainly would not want to row very long at DF 233, either.)<br /><br />I suspect that the only way to settle this completely would be to have someone actually try lowest DF rows in both altitudes and compare performances. I don't know how to isolate the O2 variable, though, since John Rupp disliked my earlier suggestion concerning the altitude simulator.<br /><br />Comments from the engineers and scientists on the board? Does this confirm the previous refutations of John Rupp's hypothesis? Did I miss something?<br /><br />Porkchop

[[old] John Rupp]

Chop,<br /><br />Your question about the similator was fine. The only thing about hypothesis, theories, and scientific testing etc is they have very little relevance to competition and performance. The same with comments from engineer types and scientific types, who try to "prove" something in their minds without taking a look at what athletes do in reality.<br /><br />According to c2's chart, a higher DF can be used at altitude, with the same effort as a lower one at sea level.<br /><br />My interest is performance, such as has been already accomplished with cyclists and runners; cyclists being faster at altitude and runners being close, depending on the fitness of the athlete or person.<br /><br />It is to be expected that those having a hard time rowing a 10k at sea level would have a much harder time at altitude because their fitness is lacking.<br /><br />The greater the disparity in fitness, the greater the difference and disadvantage at altitude.<br /><br />Only with excellent fitness is it possible to make the most of the benefits of the lesser air pressure on the fan.

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 22 2005, 08:03 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 08:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br /><br />Only with excellent fitness is it possible to make the most of the benefits of the lesser air pressure on the fan. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It's hilarious that you insist on making this claim, even though it's been repeatedly demonstrated that you are completely wrong, and you have not addressed any of the counter-claims with anything more than a reiteration of your original claim. Also, I'm still waiting for you to address my post questioning how this "fear" manifests itself in a rower. It's on the previous page I believe.

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 23 2005, 01:03 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 23 2005, 01:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Chop,<br /><br />Your question about the similator was fine.  The only thing about hypothesis, theories, and scientific testing etc is they have very little relevance to competition and performance.  The same with comments from engineer types and scientific types, who try to "prove" something in their minds without taking a look at what athletes do in reality.<br /><br />According to c2's chart, a higher DF can be used at altitude, with the same effort as a lower one at sea level.<br /><br />My interest is performance, such as has been already accomplished with cyclists and runners; cyclists being faster at altitude and runners being close, depending on the fitness of the athlete or person.<br /><br />It is to be expected that those having a hard time rowing a 10k at sea level would have a much harder time at altitude because their fitness is lacking.<br /><br />The greater the disparity in fitness, the greater the difference and disadvantage at altitude.<br /><br />Only with excellent fitness is it possible to make the most of the benefits of the lesser air pressure on the fan. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John, how do you think the monitor calculates the work you do with the handle? It looks at the <b>deceleration</b> of the flywheel. More air resistance (whether due to turbulent flow, colder, denser air, higher drag setting or atmospheric pressure) translates directly and deterministically into more deceleration of the flywheel and for any given acceleration of the flywheel more deceleration will get you credit for more work done. Thin air in the flywheel cage means that the flywheel decelerates less, so you get less credit, not more. As long as the drag factor as reported by the monitor is identical, the same motion of the handle will get you the same credit, no matter what the altitude is. I'm quite confident that the calculations done by the monitor firmware are invariant no matter the fitness or belief system of the individual doing the pulling. However, in the spirit of inquiry, I would appreciate your explanation of how this is not so...<br /><br />Here's an experiment you can try: Get a nice big plastic garbage bag that will fit over the flywheel housing of your erg. Fasten the mouth to the flywheel housing on the chain side with duct tape so the air inside the bag can't go anywhere. Cut a hole in one corner of the bag on the opposite side, and put in a vacuum cleaner hose, preferably hooked up to a strong shop vac. Seal all the joints - you don't want any air getting in or out of the flywheel housing, except through the vacuum hose. Set the drag setting lever somewhere in the middle. Push the appropriate buttons on your monitor to measure the drag factor and note the result as you row. Row some piece you can do again at the same level with a 5 minute break. Note the time. Now turn on the vacuum cleaner, which will lower the air pressure inside the fan housing and repeat the measurement of drag factor. Adjust the drag lever so you get the same drag factor as before. Wait for the rest of your 5 minutes, then row the piece again at the same exertion level. What are the results? If your altitude hypothesis (lower air pressure -> faster rowing due to decreased air resistance on fan) is correct, you should be much faster on the second piece, because it gives your flywheel the effects of altitude without forcing you to breathe thinner air.<br /><br />I'm sure a careful reading of C2's chart (where is it?) will show that they are referring to the drag setting on the flywheel, not the drag factor computed by the monitor which compensates for differences in atmospheric pressure due to (among other things) changes in altitude. If not, it should be corrected.<br /><br />Everyone has a hard time rowing a 10k if they row it hard enough. If you don't, why don't you just row a bit faster? Don't worry about showing off!<br /><br />There are no demonstrable benefits to lower air pressure on the fan. If you are convinced there are and want to demonstrate this to us, why don't you put your erg in the car, take a nice drive over to Badger Pass ski area at Yosemite and break some or all of your PBs this weekend? Elevation is about 8000', that ought to be plenty to illustrate the effect. You are an athlete with a good level of aerobic fitness, right? You said you've got experience with altitude, so it sounds like you should be all set for the demonstration.

[[old] PaulS]

whp4,<br /><br />You have to be careful with your experimental procedure, it sounds to me like you would send the DF outside the program parameters and into an error condition. I think the lowest it can go before that happens is 45 or so, then it displays something like 285 which is obvioulsy an error, and the pace display pretty much stops working.<br /><br />Actually dropping the CBreeze over the edges so that it encases the flywheel housing might even be enough to do that.<br /><br />I could think up a couple other good uses for that large garbage bag however.

[[old] Porkchop]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 22 2005, 08:03 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 08:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Chop,<br /><br />Your question about the similator was fine.  The only thing about hypothesis, theories, and scientific testing etc is they have very little relevance to competition and performance.  The same with comments from engineer types and scientific types, who try to "prove" something in their minds without taking a look at what athletes do in reality.<br /><br />According to c2's chart, a higher DF can be used at altitude, with the same effort as a lower one at sea level.<br /><br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John,<br /><br />But my suggested test would involve measuring performance by the same individual(s) at at sea level and at altitude. Wouldn't that measure what the athletes are doing in reality?<br /><br />The C2 page referred to above (<a href='http://www.concept2.com/update/S2002/drag.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/update/S2002/drag.htm </a>) doesn't seem to bear out your statement about using a higher DF at altitude. I think this is the relevant portion:<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Suppose you are at your first Indoor Rowing race. You get on your designated Indoor Rower and set the damper at 3, the same setting you have been using on your rower at home. You notice after a few pulls that a damper setting of 3 on the race machine feels like a damper setting of 4 on your home machine. <br /><br />It is very possible that your feeling is correct, because the race machine may have a different drag factor range than the home machine. <br /><br />Drag factor is a numerical value for the rate at which the flywheel is decelerating. This number changes with the volume of air that passes through the flywheel housing. Since higher damper settings allow more air into the flywheel housing, the flywheel decelerates more quickly, resulting in a higher drag factor value. The electronic Performance Monitor measures the drag factor on the recovery phase of each stroke and uses it to calculate your score. This method of "self-calibration" compensates for local conditions and damper settings, making scores on different Indoor Rowers comparable. Indoor racing and the Online Community are made possible by this method of self-calibration. <br /><br />There are a number of conditions that can affect the drag factor: <br /><br />Air temperature- Cold air is dense, so, an Indoor Rower with a drag factor of 120 at damper setting 3 at room temperature will have a higher drag factor at 50 degrees F. <br />Elevation/Barometric Pressure- <i>Air at higher elevations is less dense, so, an Indoor Rower that is moved from Boston to Denver will have a lower drag factor range in Denver. </i> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Now, maybe I am reading it incorrectly, but what I take from that is that <u>at the same damper setting</u>, the there is a lower drag factor at altitude, that is, it takes less effort to row at the same damper setting at altitude than it does at sea level. In other words, a <u>higher damper setting, not a higher DF</u>, can be used at altitude, with the same effort as a lower one at sea level. That seems to be borne out by kjgress's experience.<br /><br />I don't understand these things very well, but it seems to me that there is a very big difference there. Is there some other chart or page on the site that I am not aware of?

[[old] John Rupp]

Whp4,<br /><br />Interesting experiment. Have you tried it and, if so, what were the results? What drag factor did you get?<br /><br />To answer someone's previous question, I do at least 1/2 of my rowing at a DF of 70 or below. My marathon was with a DF of 75 and 29.5 spm.<br /><br />Again, reduced air flow through the fan cage is not the same thing as the reduced air resistance and air pressure at altitude.<br /><br />Yes it is hard for anyone to row at 100%. As I said earlier, the difference is not as regards effort, when each is going 100%, but rather as regards the difference in air resistance and air pressure, among other things, with the competition of fit athletes at altitude.

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Feb 23 2005, 02:29 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Feb 23 2005, 02:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->whp4,<br /><br />You have to be careful with your experimental procedure, it sounds to me like you would send the DF outside the program parameters and into an error condition.  I think the lowest it can go before that happens is 45 or so, then it displays something like 285 which is obvioulsy an error, and the pace display pretty much stops working.<br /><br />Actually dropping the CBreeze over the edges so that it encases the flywheel housing might even be enough to do that.<br /><br />I could think up a couple other good uses for that large garbage bag however.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />A good point. I was relying on the likelihood that John would either be unable to follow instructions, or wouldn't bother trying to prove himself wrong. It did occur to me to suggest a different experiment when he was talking about the lessened O2 concentrations increasing anaerobic capability - something involving a plastic bag and attempting to break the 200m WR (predominantly anaerobic, I assume). If a little less O2 coming in is good, a lot less O2 coming in ought to be even better! All those foolish sprinters who have been breathing when they could have run faster by holding their breath! <br /><br />You shouldn't be discarding this fine organic fertilizer in the solid waste stream, however; much better to compost the droppings! <br />

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 23 2005, 02:50 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 23 2005, 02:50 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again, reduced air flow through the fan cage is not the same thing as the reduced air resistance and air pressure at altitude. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Really? How exactly does it differ? And how does it matter, when it has been pointed out that the monitor exactly compensates for the difference in air pressure? Or do you not believe the people who program the monitor understand how it works?<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Porkchop+Feb 22 2005, 06:39 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Feb 22 2005, 06:39 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->my suggested test would involve measuring performance by the same individual(s) at at sea level and at altitude.  Wouldn't that measure what the athletes are doing in reality?<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Yes, provided the athlete/s were well trained aerobically, meaning 10k no slower than 2k pace + 5 or so. There is a huge variation of aerobic fitness among rowers. Those who are less fit will of course have less capability to use oxygen at altitude and thus this will be a major factor for them to overcome. For example for those who have a tough time with a 10k at 2k +10 at sea level are going to have a hard time with a 2k at altitude.<br /><br />The difference in o2, however, will not be as much of a factor for those with high aerobic fitness.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, maybe I am reading it incorrectly, but what I take from that is that <u>at the same damper setting</u>, the there is a lower drag factor at altitude, that is, it takes less effort to row at the same damper setting at altitude than it does at sea level.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Yes, that is my understanding too.<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Whp4,<br /><br />Remember that, according to Aristotle, the greatest good is the mean between two extremes.<br /><br />Thus your extending the optimal anaerobic component to 40,000 feet would not work.<br /><br />This was already covered in an earlier message.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 22 2005, 07:00 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 07:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, provided the athlete/s were well trained aerobically, meaning 10k no slower than 2k pace + 5 or so.  There is a huge variation of aerobic fitness among rowers.  Those who are less fit will of course have less capability to use oxygen at altitude and thus this will be a major factor for them to overcome.  For example for those who have a tough time with a 10k at 2k +10 at sea level are going to have a hard time with a 2k at altitude. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />If your 2k pace is only 5 seconds faster than your 10k pace (both being PB attempts that is), you have a very large imbalance in your overall fitness for rowing. Read, "you really need to do some strength training". Unless of course you simply do not wish to improve, which is fine also.<br /><br />But we've been over all this before. <br /><br />Come on John, just admit you are wrong, it would show that you actually have the capacity to learn, and would start the healing process. Otherwise you will remain in this freefall from reality, and the sudden stop at the end only gets more painful.